International Space Station switches from Windows to Linux, for improved reliability

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

The United Space Alliance, which manages the computers aboard the International Space Station in association with NASA, has announced that the Windows XP computers aboard the ISS have been switched to Linux. “We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable.”

In specific, the “dozens of laptops” will make the change to Debian 6. These laptops will join many other systems aboard the ISS that already run various flavors of Linux, such as RedHat and Scientific Linux. As far as we know, after this transition, there won’t be a single computer aboard the ISS that runs Windows. Beyond stability and reliability, Keith Chuvala of the United Space Alliance says they wanted an operating system that “would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust or adapt, we could.” It’s worth noting that the ISS laptops used to run Windows XP, and we know they’ve been infected by at least one virus in their lifetime: in 2008, a Russian cosmonaut brought a laptop aboard with the W32.Gammima.AG worm, which quickly spread to the other laptops on board. Switching to Linux will essentially immunize the ISS against future infections.

The laptops that were upgraded belong to the station’s OpsLAN. The crew use the OpsLAN to perform day-to-day activities, such as viewing stock inventory, controlling scientific experiments, or checking their current location. Presumably the laptops used to run bespoke Win32 apps on Windows XP, and now those apps have been re-written to work on Linux — hopefully they’re not being emulated in WINE. To get the astronauts and cosmonauts up to speed, they will be trained by the Linux Foundation.

To be honest, we shouldn’t be too surprised at the ditching of Windows. Linux is the scientific community’s operating system of choice. CERN’s Large Hadron Collider is controlled by Linux. NASA and SpaceX ground stations use Linux. DNA-sequencing lab technicians use Linux. Really, for applications that require absolute stability, which most scientific experiments are, Linux is the obvious choice. The fact that the entire OS is open source and can be easily customized for each experiment is obviously a very big draw, too.

In other news, the first humanoid robot in space, Robonaut 2, which also runs Linux, is due for an upgrade soon. Robonaut 2 (pictured above) was delivered on Space Shuttle Discovery’s final mission in 2011, and at the moment it’s just a torso with two arms — but later in 2013, some climbing legs and a battery pack should be delivered. The ultimate goal is to see whether humans and robots can operate peacefully in zero gravity, with Robonaut eventually performing menial tasks (vacuuming, changing filters), and possibly dangerous tasks during space walks, too.

It’s not “highly inaccurate,” but it’s certainly a little bit fuzzy. The thing is, Linux is inherently more secure and more stable than various iterations of Windows, and it’s not just because “there are less Linux machines, so hackers don’t bother writing viruses for them.” But anyway, there are many articles out there that explain why Linux is used on the vast majority of highly sensitive and the world’s most powerful computer systems.

Due to the standard configuration of Linux systems, unless administrators makes a series of terrible mistakes, viruses won’t propagate in the wild on Linux machines.

Guest

But “immune” is a fucking joke.

Joe_HTH

“The thing is, Linux is inherently more secure and more stable than
various iterations of Windows, and it’s not just because “there are less
Linux machines, so hackers don’t bother writing viruses for them.”

Complete load of bullsh*t. Linux is not inherently more secure and it sure as hell is not more stable. Your post is the stuff of Linux fanboy garbage and it’s patently untrue.

Back it up fanboy. The windows registry alone is a joke. It starts a million fn services at boot, and takes a bit of doing to properly harden. A properly secured Linux box is extremely secure patched and configured. Out of the box it only runs services of your choosing and has a firewall enabled by default (at least the distros I’ve worked with)

Granted a Linux box with a login of root / password with ssh facing the worl , and allowing root login wouldn’t stand a chance in hell.
Its all perspective dude.

vic_losfurcis

well well well.. What do you think the banks use for managing accounts? what do you think is controlling the stock market? what do you think is used in most of web servers? what do you think is mostly used in the top 500 computers? what do you think is controlling air traffic? what do you think is used in hospitals? etc etc…

It doesn’t matter that you don’t use it on your desktop, the truth is you are relying on it multiple times a day . and hey, I have yet to find airplanes crashing/stock markets/hospitals/entire light city systems/bank accounts in complete havoc because you say “linux is not stable” ;).

guest

No, I think highly inaccurate is more likely. To say viruses won’t propagate in the wild on Linux machines is completely untrue. Computer security is an ongoing battle and there isn’t just one solution that wraps up all flaws in a computer system. All major choices of operating systems have poor security histories. And no, Linux is not necessarily safer than Windows. All have exhibited lots of problems. In many cases, problems are in the apps, anyway. Although there are exceptions for really trusted platforms like SE Linux or Trusted Solaris. They aren’t perfect but better, and, at a cost.

Well it has never happened before – ever, so it is true. Linux viruses have been tried by countless people, but nobody has been able to successfully get them to propagate. The reason is is the better security model in Linux/Unix which was designed for network and Internet connected computers from the start. Windows was designed for the disconnected PC from the start with networking and the Internet added as a kludge. Its security model is therefore weak for networked or Internet connected computers.

Luke Robbins

“Windows was designed for the disconnected PC from the start with networking and the Internet added as a kludge. Its security model is therefore weak for networked or Internet connected computers.”

This is pretty much bullshit. All recent versions of Windows are NT based which have ACL based security since Windows NT4, MacOSX btw only implemented them when Tiger came along and Linux implemented them 7 years after Windows.

Also NT4 had ported version of the BSD network stack, which is similar to Linux.

Lie Ryan

ACL is not more (or less) secure than Linux’s chmod permission system, which was based on the age-tested Unix permission
system. When Linux implemented ACL, it does not make it more (or less)
secure, it just adds a different way to configure security in a way that is more familiar to those coming from Windows and allows better tool integration for NTFS and NFS.

John Martinson

Show me one instance of anyone using a stable Debian Linux Desktop or laptop who actually got a virus or malware?

I am a Linux sr sys admin, and I am calling bs on your comment. Linux has TONS of rootkits, crash, are MUCH more unstable than our newer Windows boxes. There problem was they are RUNNING A 12 YEAR OLD OS!! Of course going to current linux will be more “stable” by comparison, but still….this entire thing is fanboy talk. Linux is great for some things, Windows is better for others. I believe in using the best tools for the jobs. For back end app servers and some types of web servers, Linux is great. For every day end user use? Not so much.

I don’t know enough about IT to ever do your job, but I am an every-day linux end user, and have been for about 4 years.
So it’s not that bad.

John Martinson

I have been a Linux user since 2001 and have yet to get one virus or malware infection yet! So all these WindoZe Shill Trolls who get paid to lie because Steve Balmer pays them to troll can shut up!

nerdynordy

I can’t say I’m an admin, because I’m not, but I use all three major OSs (WIndows 7 and XP, OS X and CentOS Linux) every day. I love the stability of Linux – it feels rock solid. I never have to worry about it crashing, but I’m always on the command line. I hate the various graphics UIs. Gnome and KDE were designed by committee, and yes, I’ve tried Ubuntu’s Unity and it did nothing for me. If there were a Linux desktop as good as OS X I would be using Linux all the time.

I do most of my work on OS X. I test things out and play the occasional game on Windows. Windows 7 is OK, I have nothing against it, but I also have nothing I need it for.

Have you tried Cinnamon? It’s designed for Linux Mint, but it’s available on most distros I believe. And yeah, it’s still a bit rough around the edges in some areas, but overall I prefer it to the Windows UI (and I never really liked the MacOS UI)

John Martinson

There is nerdynordy its called Robolinux.

John Martinson

I agree use Windows what it is good for.

i.e.getting viruses and malware as fast as you can.

CrimsonCobra

Technically proficient Windows users like me don’t get viruses and malware as fast as the illiterate users can and if you think that by steering those careless users to Linux will prevent them from getting viruses and malware then you’re in for a rude awakening!

Plast0000

Everything got vulnerabilities
Well said

narg

Linux is FAR from secure. How do you think all the web sites loose credit card information these days? It’s from Linux based web sites. Get the clue yet?

Significan Me

It has nothing to do with linux, I assure you.

John Martinson

Prove it! Show me one bank with Linux servers that ever got hacked! You are referring to Windows servers only you idiot!

An oversimplification on the author’s part, yes, but hardly highly inaccurate. The level of risk that must be accepted to use Linux in a desktop scenario, vs the level of risk that must be accepted to use Windows, is much, much lower. In addition, the degree of infection possible to a user on a patched and properly setup Linux system (which most mainstream Linux distros mostly do now on install, by default) is significantly less permanent and far reaching, and more easily recoverable. (Yet another Security Professional, with 15 years experience)

narg

Then why do so many Linux based web sites get hacked these days? Far fewer than Windows Server based web sites. So much for being a Security Professional, one who doesn’t even know what’s really occurring in the World.

Mick R

Idiot child. In the real world it’s very rare for the server OS to be the part that fails first, it’s the web facing applications like Apache that come under attack most of the time, not the OS. When security people tell you Linux is less vulnerable than Windows, it’s because it’s true. Nothing it invulnerable to every conceivable attack, but idiots like you need to stop grouping applications in with the OS when making feeble minded declarations.

Ken Brody

The medical definition of “immune” is “*resistant* to a disease”. It does not mean “impossible to get the disease”.

Guest

Yeah, resistant… in the absolute way, so also impossible to get the disease.

Sorry, it was just a simplification for the sake of brevity. I’m well aware that Linux isn’t inherently immune to viruses/malware. I just didn’t want to spend time explaining the situation, when ‘essentially immunized’ really said enough :)

I’m glad to see the interesting discussion that it inspired, too!

John Steel

The virus needs a root password to spread, as a linux user, the most common command to get any system stuff changed requires the sudo command and then password sequence. Even if you download a virus (I downloaded multiple windows viruses for fun), it stays in the folder and cannot directly harm the user. An extra protection is that users can lock down specific folders to prevent any entry of the virus or prevent virus spread from specific folder control. It’s difficult at the moment, considering how linux is for a very nerdy community.

In short, yeah, it’s immune to Windows viruses. It may not be immune to Linux viruses, but even if a linux virus was made, the program needs root to do actually any damage. Meaning somehow, it needs to guess the password or type the password itself. It’s very difficult.

Yes and instead of trading in a 12 year old virus trap for Windows 7 NASA did the smart thing and switched to Linux. You “BROneagli” have obviously never used Linux in your life. Veterans like me who have used it for over a decade have the real experience to make comments here. Not WindoZe Bafoonatics like you.

Guest

The myth is that Linux computers are immune to viruses, they’re not
affected by windows viruses is more accurate. over 80% of computers use
some form of windows OS, so therefor most viruses are written for them.
Linux users number in the single digits percentage wise so it’s not
worth the effort for hackers to write viruses for them yet, giving the
illusion that they are immune.

SAL_e

It is fact that most of the viruses are written for Windows, but it is myth that Linux hasn’t be attacked by hackers. In fact Linux was the first one to be attacked in the past. Most servers on the Internet runs Linux or *BSD based OS. Before hackers started targeting the users they was targeting the servers. The pay-out is much better. After the security of Linux and BSD improved and SysAdmins learn how to secure their servers the hackers move to more easy targets. At that time Windows was already 90% of the desktop market and Windows users were exposed like sitting ducks by MS. Original strategy of MS wasn’t to release updates… They tried to force you to upgrade in order to get the patch. After the DOJ start looking into their practices and their reputation start declining they started to take security seriously. It took long time to get to the point where the new Windows 7 and 8 are mostly secure. Today hackers are moving to new targets… Java, Flash, poorly implemented SoS (a.k.a “cloud’) and mobile OS_es. And if everything else fails… you can always con the user (a.k.a Social Engineered attack).

narg

Linux is why so many people loose credit cards from on-line sites, and loose personal information from on-line sites. Linux web systems are SO EASY to hack, it’s just plain silly.

SAL_e

Repeating the same argument over and over again reviles your skills in critical thinking. For person who has the arrogance to tell other people to “get a clue”, you are asking quite ignorant questions and especially funny you stumble on the answer your self in comment you left later:
narg asked multiple times: “why so many people loose credit cards from on-line sites, and loose personal information from on-line sites?”
narg answered: “Viruses don’t attack Windows OS any more. They attack the 3rd party
software. Just the same as Linux, and they do attack Linux systems
through the same method, and steal information”
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry?!

Actually, poorly coded websites are ‘SO EASY’ to hack, it has little to do with the underlying operating system. If you write your PHP or JS or Perl or whatever poorly enough that you allow SQL injection into your forms or other scripting attacks, you’re just asking for your data to be stolen. If you’ve not set up your hardware to handle high traffic loads, then of course servers will glitch out when they’re operating above optimal capacity.

Windows hosting won’t change any of that.

Joe_HTH

Over 90% of computers use Windows, not 80%.

SAL_e

90% of the desktops and laptops (not all computers) are running Windows. It depends on how you define a computer, but if you use broad definition that includes new computing devices like smartphones and tablets Windows will be on minority of them.

symbolset

For the limited definition of “Windows, OS X and GNU/Linux client computers”. Which currently is about 1/3rd of client computer sales. It turns out computers fit in your pocket now.

J D Onl ine

The problem with Linux is that the correct usage is not reported. Since all the laptops are pre-installed with Windows, they are properly counted, but those who use dual boot or get rid of pesky Win OS, its not reported. Thats why there is vast difference in count.

Linux has actually never been attacked successfully by viruses, that is the thing. There are more Linux computers connected permanently to the Internet than Windows ones – since they make up more Internet servers and most router and firewalls are Linux. Windows are much less exposed because they are protected behind Linux firewalls.

The reason why most viruses are written for Windows is because Windows is more vulnerable – it is the same reason why burglars pick on the most vulnerable houses, bypassing more secure properties which suffer very few in proportion.

Luke Robbins

It hasn’t been successfully attacked by viruses because there is no standard system software/apis that you can expect to exist. Unfortunately real software needs this to, which is why installing any software outside of a distros repository is a major PITA.

This is article how to install Spotify for Ubuntu on Fedora and it is exactly 5 simple commands. You are going to have much harder time installing software strictly written to run for Windows XP on Windows 7 or 8 for example. Currently I am working on project where mission critical system has to be migrated to Windows 7 and we almost exhausted all of the options and we have not succeeded yet. The management already accepted the fact that this system will have to be replaced in the next 2 years, or about 3-5 years earlier then was plan and at huge cost for them.

Luke Robbins

Spotify isn’t mission critical bespoke software is it?

5 commands assuming that the libraries are there, otherwise you are statically linking libraries on the command line vs a installer (on all versions of Windows) that is a few clicks to install.

I also have to wonder how the hell this software is tied to a specific version of Windows … this normally happens when people don’t use Windows APIs/Environment variables, undocumented hooks into the operating system and other such nastiness.

SAL_e

Let’s say that this software is so called … software with a history. :) It is full with bugs and many of those bugs don’t show up until it is moved to newer version of the Windows. The worst is that uses libraries where we don’t have access to the source code and there is noway to find exact cause of the problem is it bug in the library or the software. This is the main reason why programmers like Linux. There is nothing hidden from them they can go as deep as they need to resolve a bug.

Spotify isn’t mission critical software, but it is closed source software. If the service provider doesn’t package the software for Fedora, you should not expect easy job to run it on Fedora. It is software for Ubuntu and there is just few clicks away.

narg

Viruses don’t attack Windows OS any more. They attack the 3rd party software. Just the same as Linux, and they do attack Linux systems through the same method, and steal information.

John Martinson

Cute cut and paste Shill from Steve Balmer’s damage control paid army of liars.
The reality is Linux and Unix were and are designed from the ground up to be far more secure than any MS DOS WindoZe defrag monkey business garbage OS ever was.

William Vincenti

Once again Guest, you don’t seem to know anything about Linux, it can’t be compared to Windows by percentages when discussing virus’, it is a completely different kernel and OS type. You must be as others have said, paid by Windows to rant because you haven’t done any research on Linux of a legitimacy. MAC is too proprietary and to anti-open source in the courts, as Linux grows MAC too will have to go. I was a contractor for NASA at a facility that supported the SS and they do not make computing decisions without an immense amount of research, NASA sets the research standards in much of what they do and test. I’m a happy Linux user for 4+ years now, and only run Windows because current job requires it. W7 is ok, i run it from Virtual Box on a Linux Arch pc, where i have much greater control over what Windows can and can’t do than I would on a Windows box.

William Vincenti

Once again Guest, you don’t seem to know anything about Linux, it can’t be compared to Windows by percentages when discussing virus’, it is a completely different kernel and OS type. You must be as others have said, paid by Windows to rant because you haven’t done any research on Linux of a legitimacy. MAC is too proprietary and to anti-open source in the courts, as Linux grows MAC too will have to go. I was a contractor for NASA at a facility that supported the SS and they do not make computing decisions without an immense amount of research, NASA sets the research standards in much of what they do and test. I’m a happy Linux user for 4+ years now, and only run Windows because current job requires it. W7 is ok, i run it from Virtual Box on a Linux Arch pc, where i have much greater control over what Windows can and can’t do than I would on a Windows box.

Lucky4Awhile

I love it when Window’s apologists continue to push their stale, emotional arguments to defend their operating system. The fact is, by their own design, Unix and Linux are much safer against viruses than Windows. Is it possible to hack into one of these servers or “attack” them? Yes. But it’s far more difficult to do so, especially if security is properly configured on them. That’s not always the case with Windows. It’s getting better, but it still has a long way to go before it can truly match what Linux has already achieved.

The article also points out the reliabilty differences between Linux and Windows. Again, Windows has improved a lot since Windows XP, but Linux is still, by far, considerably more reliable. I have the servers running for over two years with no reboots to prove it.

Joe_HTH

“The fact is, by their own design, Unix and Linux are much safer against viruses than Windows.”

More bullshit! They are not as safe as Windows. In fact, renown hacker and Apple security guru Charlie Miller has said it time and time again that Windows is more secure. Linux and Unix only give the illusion of being more secure because malware creators don’t brother targeting those platforms, because they are irrelevant, and have an irrelevant percentage of the market.

” Again, Windows has improved a lot since Windows XP, but Linux is still, by far, considerably more reliable.”

So it’s one “Apple security guru” oppinion of linux vs the oppinions of almost every other security guru?

SAL_e

Charlie Miller is respected security researcher with somewhat different and sometimes controversial views. I don’t claim to speak for him, but he made very valid point after he took down fully patched MacBook Pro in seconds. He compared Windows to a well fortified house in the very bad neighbourhood and OS X to a house with unlocked front door in the middle of nowhere. He was speaking strictly about OS X and that it lacks some of the security features found in new Windows kernels. Features like Address Space Randomization.

Of course Joe is extrapolating here and because OS X at that time was behind Windows, all Unix and Linux kernels are like that. The truth is that many of the modern security features implemented by Windows were first developed and tested for Linux and *BSD kernels from different researchers.

smaudet

Again you could do with posting some information on the ‘better security’ offered by Windows, according to Charlie Miller.

A man who, as far as the articles on the web reveal, doesn’t say a lot about the security architecture involved; from what I can tell he makes broad sweeping generalizations and then asserts them as if he’s proven a fact…

narg

Who need Charlie Miller for this info. It’s available in so many places. That is if you know how to use Google….

smaudet

You cannot prove something by claiming its truth without making a case. I don’t care if the information is embedded on every single page on the web; you have said and done and contributed absolutely nothing at all. Please spare us the vapidity.

Microsoft is becoming irrelevant. The ONLY thing that they have left is SharePoint and that, too, is a mess.

Discus

You clearly have never used Linux if you’re spouting such windows fanboy rubbish. How about you actually use it, or are you too frightened to move away from your Windows PC? lol Bit out of your comfort zone is it Joe?

It’s far more secure. The only negative downside I can see is companies who use old versions of distros that are not updated anymore. It has better uptime than windows, and is cheaper, in fact free depending on which distro you’re running. Of course it requires a bit of technical knowledge, which may scare some Windows fanboys off it. Bit too difficult for them you see. ;-)

William Vincenti

Joe knows nothing about Linux and is probably job scared that open source might take away his windows cash cow

CyanoBacteria

XP? lol…

Jon Colt

“,,,one giant leap for mankind.”

jackie john

awesome

Joe_HTH

LOL! I’ve never read such a bunch bullshit excuses in my life. Yeah, Linux can’t get viruses and Windows is not stable or reliable at all. What complete bullshit.

narg

Any system can get viruses. Period. This article is so full of it. Just another BS opinion article with ZERO fact.

BigOkieTechie

…*puts on big movie voice-over guy voice*…

In space…no one can hear Windows scream…

lolz…buh bye Ballmersoft…Hello Torvaldsware!

William Washburn

They switched because the US Gov’t is POOR and can’t afford the upgrade to Win7. Seriously I work for the largest physical govt dept and more than half our servers are 15-20 years old (numbering in the 1000s) and we are just now starting the migration to Win7. Desktops/laptops range in the 5-7 year range and have no regular maintenance done on them. There’s more and it’s pitiful… would LOL but it isn’t really funny – slow motion train wreck.

SAL_e

I’m sure the recent budget cuts in combination of Apr-2014 deadline for XP is the trigger for the current switch, but I don’t believe the cost is the reason alone. In my experience working with Gov is that main reason to chose Windows over Linux is the ‘liability’. Most of the government agencies by law are required to obtain their services and hardware from “approved vendors”. In case of software acquisitions I have seen Gov to spend $$$ for proprietary software where better FOSS alternative is available.

And lastly I don’t know why software written for Gov and paid with tax-payers money is allowed to remain closed source. If the development of the software is paid by tax money. it should be released as Free Open Source Software.

Nils

I doubt very much that budget cut is the reason they ditch 20 windows licences and spends time and money on getting stuff to run on Linux.

SAL_e

Me too. But budget cut could be the reason why the management could not afford expensive long term support contract with MS or other 3rd party and they (the management) was forced to listen their SysAdmins to get FOSS, so they can maintain and customize their systems. FOSS is free to get, but you need knowledgeable people to work with it. I’m sure NASA has some pretty sharp software engineers on staff. And those engineers will really appreciate the ability to trace a problem all the way to basic kernel subroutine if need for that arise.

Ric Moore

That would HAVE to be the IRS. And we know what people think about them. :)

Warning – The comments below constitute a geek fight. you can see the flappy wrist action in your mind while reading the posts.

David

Since you seem to know so much about so many things, do you care to
explain what’s wrong with the minor changes necessary to port bespoke
win32 apps to WINE?

smaudet

Virus flaming aside, there is one very important aspect being demonstrated here: Linux systems are much longer lasting.

The real benefit here is not virii; Windows XP is decrepit, unpatched, and insecure. It is not patch-able (unless Microsoft were to release its source), and it is only going to get harder and harder to support anything running on XP (that said I have fond memories of it and am sad to see it go, just not to the extent that it zombifies back from its well-earned grave).

Upgrading to a newer version of Windows would quite frankly be ridiculous due to the added hardware requirements which would be necessary to implement on board the ISS. There is no software need on the ISS for the latest version of Battlefield, or any corporate legacy software.

Quite simply, MS is in the business of selling stuff, not fixing anything, making this task uniquely applicable to the use of Linux, and unsuitable for any MS product.

chojin999

All marketing bull for the public.

They don’t use any of those for real. The real systems run on custom encrypted military level OSes.

J D Onl ine

They don’t use custom, but more hardened version.

smaudet

Eh, more or less.

Linux is fine for public facing infrastructure/astronauts; while hardening/variants do occur (which is fine), there’s only so much you get by re-implementing a kernel from scratch, and fragmentation leads to more headaches and errors. While NASA could be running 12 different kernels, I very much doubt it uses anything more than a thoroughly vetted couple, with lots of security modules piled on top.

If a mythological military kernel does exist, odds are it runs only on the most obscure of equipment. And yes, the US military has run Windows XP in the past.

Here is a hardened version of Linux on a CD-Rom ( can’t be changed by a virus, because of the clean linux installation from booting from a CD-ROM.

Free to try out on your computers “narg or Joe_HTH”

Waiting to hear back your review, AFTER truly running LPS.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters‎As local governments come under pressure from institutions such as the … The spread of Linux affords some leverage for these countries when …. The South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) deployed …

Well Linux has spread out of this Earth World to infect International Space Station with Goodness! A long running (in years) stable computer for use by a human with presently available computer hardware in the space station. Yeah !

There are several ‘very’ ignorant comments posted here along the lines that, all things being equal somehow, from a virus standpoint, window and gnu/linux are equal. This is simply “NOT TRUE”. gnu/linux is more secure than windows on several levels.

There is a fundamental design “difference” at the kernel level which makes gnu/linux virtually immune to virus attack. On the other hand, windows systems are by setup and design vulnerable at several levels. There are several reasons for this.

1) The windows kernel is designed to be open to third party intrusion. In other words, third parties are allowed by design to be able to write|run at ring 0 (zero). (They have root authority) This is to leave open the natural likelihood that third party code can (and does) bring the system down or leaves the system open to further intrusion because it violates the integrity of the operating kernel.

gnu/linux , on the other hand, does not allow third party software to run as root (unless the system admin allows it, and they don’t).

2) Windows code can be run automatically (based on naming convention) without user knowledge or permission.

gnu/linux, on the other hand, does not allow automatic execute permission by default. In other words, executable code can be downloaded/uploaded, yes, but it won’t execute without the permissions being explicitly set… and this is turned off by default.

3) Windows zero day vulnerabilities are ferocious. This is because not only is the monolithic kernel easy to hack when a zero day vulnerability is found, but because there are only a very few builds (xp with fix pack 2 is xp with fix pack 2) its easy for these types of attacks to propagate because the build image is well known (predictable).

gnu/linux, on the other hand, exists in the wild as thousands of different builds. Every time the kernel is rebuilt by ‘someone’ (like me for instance) all of its off-sets are different (the monolithic kernel becomes unique). This means that propagating zero day root kits is much much more difficult in the wild on a gnu/linux system, even if you could somehow get it in there… more on that later.

4) Windows networking is essentially an add-on that traditionally has required third party protection (how dumb was that>?). Today the windows system is handling much more of its own security, but the user sys admin has much less control at the critical details. Locking down a windows machine defeats the Microsoft marketing strategy behind the windows system. Put simply, the system needs back-doors to be marketing friendly. Users and sys|admins have a difficult time locking things down and still getting the system to work.

gnu/linux, on the other hand, is locked down at the kernel level. In days past this was accomplished with ipchains… today this is accomplished with iptables. The rules of iptables is in the hands of the sys|admins totally. The system can be locked down at the kernel level without *any* third party protection schemes being required. (How many of you think that symantec, norton, mcaffey, etc want windows to stay around for just THAT purpose alone?) duh.

5) This is a corollary to no. 2 above. Code is ‘executable’ on a windows machine based on its name(!?!) … uh, like 1982. .com .exe .bas .dll etc. dumb.

gnu/linux, on the other hand, requires run permissions by owner, group, and other. Execute permissions are off by default. Permissions are set based on usage not based on name. Users can be restricted based on group, ownership, or general user.

6) Windows allows code to run from anywhere. really dumb.

gnu/linux, on the other hand, restricts execution code at the root level to specific partition, specific directory, etc. User partitions may be mounted that do no allow the execution of user code at all ! Or, the user partitions may be mounted so that code may not execute with root permissions from that partition. There are many combinations and permutations here… basically, the system can be locked down easily to run the way the user wants it to… instead of the way Microsoft wants it to.

7) Windows system services are suspect, and locked from user control by default. The windows mechanisms which are necessary for marketing strategy also make the system vulnerable to attack. Windows systems leave vulnerable ports open by default.

gnu/linux, on the other hand, has system services with integrity (or much more so). The services work for the interests of the system (users, sys|admin) and not for the interests of a corporation(s). One of the key areas of interest here is which ports are open?>? Ports are closed by default on gnu/linux systems and must be opened explicitly by the user sys|admin. Closed ports of course prevent Microsoft marketing innovations (ha!) but they protect the system… closed ports means security. gnu/linux system admins will open only necessary ports, and then only after those ports have been hardened.

——-

Having said all of that, there are a couple other points that need to be kelp in mind. If a user sys|admin is careless with root, or open ports, or does not have a physical security plan, then some bets are off. But by and large, gnu/linux systems are WAY more secure out-of-box than any windows system running. True Story.

Never listen to an ignorant MS fanboy harping that linux is somehow just as vulnerable as windows, if just more people would write viri for it… ha! … its just an ignorant statement… attested to by the millions of people who run gnu/linux viri free, trojan free, and port attack free. (and zero day free)

Cheers.

smaudet

Not to mention, the illogical corollary being drawn that, because lots of Windows machines are infected, and lots of authors write to infect Windows, a similar situation must occur on Linux if you motivate more authors to infect Linux…

About the only truth is that zero-day attacks are theoretically just as much of a problem on Linux as Windows, but for a reason entirely unrelated to the OS: it only takes a single critical flaw to compromise a system. This says nothing about which one is easier to hack, which one has better security, or which one has more or less z-day attacks, and whether or not those z-day attacks are more prominent by design.

@MS Virus Fanboys
Do some research and write a virus for linux before you start spouting nonsense.

IPhones? The ones with the FreeBSD kernel? Or maybe Android phones? With Linux kernel?

Linux is now everywhere – from watches to phones to tablets to laptops to fridges to cars to ATMs to industrial robots to bank servers to space craft.

Windows is a tiny minority now. And still it is the one getting hacked the most.

That_Exploit_Guy

> This is simply “NOT TRUE”.
A nice summary of your comment, in my opinion.

> The windows kernel is designed to be open to third party intrusion. In other words, third parties are allowed by design to be able to write|run at ring 0 (zero).
Interesting. Care to point out the part of the API that allows such magic “ring 0 user processes” mechanism to take place?

> gnu/linux , on the other hand, does not allow third party software to run as root (unless the system admin allows it, and they don’t).
It seems that you have confused something running with _elevated privileges_ with something running at x86 ring 0, but what do I know?

> Windows code can be run automatically (based on naming convention) without user knowledge or permission.
Unless you are talking about .com files (which are the _only_ type of executable that is run by loading itself directly into memory, has a size limit of 64kb, has limited support on x86 NT lines and is completely unsupported on x86_64 NT lines by architectural limits), what you have there is at best a peculiar statement given most Linux system will by design attempt to execute _anything_ regardless of any naming convention so as long as it has an “execute” permission assigned to it.

Besides, did you know you could disable execution by ACL in NTFS? Oh, and in case you are wondering, even NT 4 honours that just as it does every other ACL property. Also, if you think “read” is the same as “execute” in NTFS, you DON’T know NTFS ACLs. Period.

> Windows zero day vulnerabilities are ferocious.
Google “cheddar bay exploit”. That’s all I have to say.

> This is a corollary to no. 2 above. Code is ‘executable’ on a windows machine based on its name(!?!)
No. Just, no. Windows merely uses the file name extensions to map the files to the right handling application. You can’t simply execute what’s not a PE or a DOS executable as a PE (which is COFF-based and contain metadata as _demanded_ by the OS for execution) or a DOS executable (which contains the MZ header, and notice that I have omitted the NE format used in Windows 1.0 – 3.11). This is not to mention the discretionary execution permission inherent to NTFS, of course.

> gnu/linux, on the other hand, requires run permissions by owner, group, and other.
And which part of that is NOT covered by NTFS ACLs?

> Execute permissions are off by default.
Which is true only if you have the _user modifiable_ umask set to at least 0111 and is completely pointless in any practical sense without MAC, which you cannot realise even in the presence of SELinux without performing reverse engineering voodoo (or, as RedHat puts it, “learning mode”) on each and every application in order for them to do what _you believe_ they are supposed to do on your system.

But who cares about proper threat modelling anyway?

> Windows allows code to run from anywhere. really dumb.
Code is executable so as long as you allow it execute at all. Given your weak comprehension of the basics of NT (and Linux), I have no doubt that any Windows (or Linux) system you managed would have random things running all over the place.

And that’s the most generous opinion I can give you.

> Windows system services are suspect, and locked from user control by default.
Really? Have you at least _tried_ to look at the “Services” snap-in in MMC and see how it works? Of course, there are certain services that you cannot mess with when the OS is running, but I doubt that any sensibly implemented *nix system would allow you do something like “kill -9 1” either.

> The windows mechanisms which are necessary for marketing strategy also make the system vulnerable to attack.
Hmmm… An arm-chair, self-appointed market analyst on the Internet offers his two cents on unsubstantiated nonsense. What are the odds?

> Ports are closed by default on gnu/linux systems
A closed port simply means no service is listening to that port. I mean, no one ever needs to share files or anything, right? And who needs a proper application-based firewall anyway?

> Never listen to an ignorant MS fanboy harping
Or some loud-mouthed ignorant fool talking about Linux being “zero-day free”. (Oh, boy – could someone forward that to the grsec guys, FAST?)

Mark H. Harris

Well, then… I suggest writing a long letter to NASA, and tell them they’ve made a huge mistake… they must be wrong. Be sure to tell them that windows is safe and reliable… especially because it uses ACCESS CONTROL LISTS ~!! :-O

Ok, serious answer, I am a 25 year staff software engineer with IBM (retired). I was the first person at IBM to use gnu/linux on an internal missions critical beo-cluster (true story); thing is still running, as far as I know. I have programmed every OS/2 variant (NT, W2000, XP, &etc they all suck, including OS/2) … haven’t used anything but gnu/linux since 1998… for all of the reasons stated in my original post. Just saying…

Access Control Lists and the Windows Registry are two (2) , but not limited to (2), of Windows weakest links. ACLs are a complete joke… and the windows registry is the worst computer science mistake since IBM’s OS/2 ini file. Get serious.

On the other hand, gnu/linux uses a ‘real’ file system that keeps itself cleaned up… no fragmented disks… and which is *all* readable. (no ini files, no registry to get snafu’d). The permissions are not contained in kludgy access control lists, but are maintained where they should be in the meta-data in the filesystem. Oh, did I mention that windows doesn’t have a real filesystem?? Geeze wake up. They have not improved one iota from NT’s ‘NTFS’ which sucks. Any of the Unix filesystems have NTFS beat hands down for stability and reliability… along with the permissions I talked about previously — by owner, group, user. NO NEED FOR Access Control Lists, and pin-point accuracy for in-house lock-down and control.

One more point… how many times have you heard about a third-party ‘replacing’ a windows dll files with one of their ‘own’ and there-by compromising the system… not happening on gnu/linux.

Windows is simply designed wrong. They’ve come a long way by add-on kludge-works, and it mostly works ok… most days… but it is AND NEVER WILL BE Unix. gnu/linux is safe and reliable for many reasons, mostly due to good design, carefully thought out networked kernel, and a good filesystem. It will do the kinds of things NASA needs it to do, with the control they need to have, because the unix concept is simply better engineered. IMHO

Cheers

That_Exploit_Guy

> Ok, serious answer, I am a 25 year staff software engineer with IBM (retired). I was the first person at IBM to use gnu/linux on an internal missions critical beo-cluster (true story);
Even though your understanding of all things you have mentioned is _worse_ than amateur? Of course, this is not to mention “Staff Software Engineer” at IBM is nothing more than a title for application developers (which IBM has been moving left and right to developing countries). Also, how’s that MA in Theology going? (Don’t I love this social networking thing!)

By the way, Beowulf clusters are arguably the easiest kind of clusters you can build. After all, that’s what kiddies use to mine bitcoins with. But, again, what do I know?

> I have programmed every OS/2 variant (NT, W2000, XP, &etc they all suck, including OS/2) …
You worked for IBM and thought NT was an OS/2 variant? That’s really says a lot about your supposed credentials, doesn’t it?

> On the other hand, gnu/linux uses a ‘real’ file system that keeps itself cleaned up… no fragmented disks…
Really? Care to _show_ me exactly how this “real” file system (I’ll try and not use Linus Torvalds own words “brain damaged” here) works compared to NTFS? And by “show” I mean empirical evidence produced under controlled conditions, not your sketchy understanding of NTFS (or the “real” file system) based on random stuff you read on the Internet.

Well, I’m on the planet whose International Space Station just dumped Windows from its mission critical notebooks because they needed a “stable and reliable operating system”.

Go Linux… er, I mean, Gnu/Linux !

Cheers

That_Exploit_Guy

> Well, I’m on the planet whose International Space Station just dumped Windows from its mission critical notebooks because they needed a “stable and reliable operating system”.
So what does that exactly mean to anyone aside from a salesman’s pitch?

You also haven’t responded to my queries on fragmentation and Posix permissions, Mr. Theologian.

That_Exploit_Guy

> Well, I’m on the planet whose International Space Station just dumped Windows from its mission critical notebooks because they needed a “stable and reliable operating system”.
So what does that exactly mean to anyone aside from a salesman’s pitch?

You also haven’t responded to my queries on fragmentation and Posix permissions, Mr. Theologian.

But since you brought is up… in my first life I used computer science to solve IBM’s business problems. I was a systems programmer and my speciality was systems automation and automated measurement systems.

Today I use my computer science (mostly Python on gnu/linux these days) to work out Greek, Hebrew and Latin morphology (tagging / syntax / database) in the context of biblical and classical languages for use in the field of biblical textual studies ( I’m a computer geek, and a Greek biblical scholar ) , if you’re interested. Neither here nor there… but you might want to stick with making your points and spend less (or no) time with ad hominem, straw men, red herrings, nor analogies.

Unless you’re a troll, in which case be at peace, Jesus loves you and so do I….

:)

Cheers,

That_Exploit_Guy

> I’ll just restate… Windows ACLs are a joke.
No, that doesn’t in any way constitute a meaningful response. You are just pushing a technically unsubstantiated point by pandering a what is at best a shaky credential. This is not to mention the numerous, blatant factual errors (including NT being an OS/2 variant; tell that to IBM) in your previous comments, and it is saddening to see that 15 people agree with you because they value what sounds impressive more than what is factually accurate.

> But since you brought is up… in my first life I used computer science to solve IBM’s business problems. I was a systems programmer and my speciality was systems automation and automated measurement systems.
So what exactly is the reason for me or anyone to be impressed by you being once a “Staff Software Engineer” any more than anyone should be impressed by someone being a run-of-the-mill business application developer (say, from Accenture)? Besides, if it was a position that even a theologian could take, then who _couldn’t_?

> but you might want to stick with making your points and spend less (or no) time with ad hominem, straw men, red herrings, nor analogies.
Interesting, the only thing I see (just as anyone else can see) is you being unable to substantiate factually any claim you have made in your comments on Windows (or Linux). Again, where is this magic Win32 API that allows user processes to run at ring 0? Produce the evidence (documentations, memory dump, whatever) or don’t make the claim at all.

smaudet

Actually I don’t see either of you making solid arguments. Time out, the both of you.

Theologian:

Explain the ‘joke’ of the ACLs. Your vague answer about NTFS is not extremely satisfying, ACLs are a sound idea in theory at least.

Exploit_Guy:

Be more specific about the rings and the Windows API. The lack of an published API isn’t proof that one doesn’t exist. On the other hand, the linux kernrl is open, so there is verifiably no such API.

Both of you; try forming a coherent literary attack.

Exploit_Guy:

Zero days on any platform are equally ferocious. Cheddar Bay is merely an example of what used to be a zero day on Linux. The difference is in how strong the controls are which handle unexpected zero days. The existence of Cheddar Bay is not a proof that Windows security isn’t particularly poorly designed.

Cheddar Bay is a particular example of when those controls themselves fail; however it is not a proof either way that those controls are more likely to fail. Much like how VMs are ‘impervious’ to normal virii, and only (generally) fail when the VMs themselves bypass their own restrictions. So we can say that VMs are better controls than normal OS permissions, the existence of faulty VMs is non-correlatable with the poor quality of the OS level permissions themselves. Ditto with Windows permissions, you must show that e.g. when the OS level permissions fail, there are fail-safes built into the ‘OS’ which must then themselves fail.

Hence, as a security expert you must provide a real proof or argument that Windows vulnerabilities are not generally ferocious.

‘Or some loud-mouthed ignorant fool talking about Linux being “zero-day free”. (Oh, boy – could someone forward that to the grsec guys, FAST?)’

Again, its not about being zero-day ‘free’ – its about implementing the best architecture for handling the inevitable bugs.

what

So no Windows 8, then?

MSSC

There was no need to jump around and dance like some creepy Hipster. Plus NASA actually wants to get something accomplished.

Ken Ash

unfortunatly something bad has happened, Now there leaking amonia from there cooling system. As usual, there are no supported and or equivilent linux programs to replace windows with. 3 of the crew members are due to come back monday.

ampatriot

@Luke Robbins
ACL???? You wanted to say that Windows had no separation for root vs unpriv users and started implementing something like that decades after linux. You are welcome.

J A

Clearly the author is not a geek, he got this wrong.

“Windows XP, and now those apps have been re-written to work on Linux — hopefully they’re not being emulated in WINE.”

Emultaed in WINE, I don’t think so, WINE: The phrase “Wine Is Not an Emulator” is a reference to the fact that no processor code execution emulation occurs when running a Windows app under Wine.- Wikipedia.

While WINE is no classical processor emulator, it works as a compatiblity layer between the system and the program, therefore it has to redirect the Win32-API-calls to the corresponding GNU/Linux-API-Functions.
Although WINE is not a emulator in the classical sense, some functions have to be emulated, so a program emulated by WINE runs in sandbox even with some emulated functions.

RON

HELLO ANYONE HOME IN THE ISS WOW U ARE KIDDING RIGHT OR LEFT I WAS AN AIR FORCE PILOT
IN VIETNAM, AND FLOW FOR 30 YEARS HOPE THEY NEVER TRY TO BRING HER BACK WITH LINUX THEY MIGHT AS WELL GO TO THE MOON AND BUY CHEESE. COL RONALD S. BUTLER USAF {RET}

because XP was the only version of windows that was vetted for safe use when you don’t have a sysadmin available to come up and reboot your machine.

As noted, military (and NASA) have specific requirements that must be met before any software stack can be deployed. This is not your ordinary user desktop where anybody can just install jack-all because they want to.

Besides, later versions of windows requires beefier hardware – which has not been radiation hardened for space use.

So, they switched to Linux because it’s easier to find a Linux admin than a Windows admin in space?
Last I checked, it was far more complicated to get a Linux system up and running well. You can do a lot more tweeking (and a lot more screwing it up).

Linux is supposedly quite popular in academic communities though, so I doubt they have a shortage of sufficiently well trained server admins.

Besides, if you know enough to config a server, you generally know enough to debug faults with that same server.

MSSC

You did not check

alisonken1

You missed the part about being able to modify as needed without having to wait for the contracted entity to fix what’s broken.

Also – linux is easier to remotely manage than windows – especially when you don’t have a dedicated wire connected to said system – they have to timeshare the wireless with their comms systems :)

alisonken1

oh – and btw – it takes me about 20 minutes to boot from install CD into getting a full-blown system up and running. And that’s not because I’ve been doing for a while, but because Slackware (my distro of choice) has an easy install setup that doesn’t require handholding and mouse clicking through stuff that should not need to be popping up. If you think linux is harder to install than windows, you probably haven’t tried side-by-side installations of either windows or linux from store-bought boxes (or official d/l install media) for some decades.

Although, I have created an automated installer that also partitioned and formatted the disk as well as installed pre-selected packages, linux installs are pretty easy for some time now, and I have done bare metal installs of windows (and yes, that was more recent than W95) and linux.

alisonken1

and to answer your first question – NASA has a lot of linux admins since they use linux in many varied configurations. Don’t have the link atm, but you can google|bing|whatever for nasa and linux and find various reports and stories on linux use in nasa.

Besides having a budget that seems to keep getting gutted, no – the main reason is the time/money involved in vetting hardware for space use as well as the software that would work on said hardware for remote operations.

Keyword(s) to look for here is “budget” and “NASA” in the federal budget.

For those arguing about the virus, did you read about this part in the article?

“… they wanted an operating system that “would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust or adapt, we could.””

Can you do that with Windows? Any versions of Windows?

With Linux distro, you can recompile the packages to the most optimum way that you see fit! That goes with the kernel too. You can hardened, slimmed down almost any Linux distro to bare minimum necessary. This is also the reason why Linux is MORE secure than that bloated Windows.

I think they are worried about all the reboots when the system updates 6 times a day.

ragething

almost all servers run linux for good reason, its server software… The ISS is not one PC sitting in the corner with a p3 450 with 128meg of ram. Its not a lolbox or an entertainment PC for the guys and girls to develop their sims character… Its a server. It just happens to be a server for air release valves. coolants and whatnot.

Rob Cenname

I have to agree with the author. I have been using Linux steadily since 2006, and I have never had a single virus. Only ONCE, I had a browser hijack, which was very simple to fix on Linux. I just had to change back the homepage on the browser and the default search engine. That same hijack has a Windows version, which messes up the browser homepage, changes the default search engine, AND goes and writes various registry entries. So it was nearly impossible to fix on a Windows machine. Windows’ major flaw is its registry. That thing is too complex and difficult to maintain against viruses and spyware. Linux really is just about immune…though not 100 percent, as nothing is perfect.

Dee

Wow … “dozens of laptops” and other computers. That must be a load of weight and extra heat load on the station’s systems. I’m surprised they haven’t replaced all that with a rack of blades running a bunch of virtual instances – teamed with a fleet of tablets floating around for general access and use.

I am absolutely STAGGERED the ISS has EVER, repeat *EVER* had Microsoft software running!??? Windows is for pensioners and receptionists, NOT astronaughts…

SarK0Y

i think here needs a breath of common sense :D WXP is the best of windows (it’s stable, fast, humble to resources). but Linux is Open Source, so you can adapt it to your tasks at any level, you can investigate any malfunction w/o the needs to deal w/ copyright. In short, Linux/BSD is digital homes of Scientific Community ;D it’s very strange that ISS did wait that long to get in right way. :D

I recently changed over one of my computers to linux, Ubuntu to be specific, and I have to say, that once you install it, it works as good if not better than Windows. Though to be fair, I did have trouble installing it on a laptop.

Great thing about Linux is that it is open source, you can usually find a distribution and download it for free – legitimately. It is very reliable and widely used in scientific research, you can download nearly all applications you want for free and easily simply using the sudo-get, it is great!!

Dave Dave

OMG What terrifying thought to be on a space station operating on microsoft, “Would you like to send an error report?”

Dave Dave

(My dad put Linux Umbuntu on my old laptop when cycling home drunk once and i lost the hard disk and needed a new op sys – now it is a SUPER COMPUTER Mwahahahha) Boots in 30 seconds shuts down in five; hardly ever crashes. My mums brand new HP running windows 7 laptop coughs and splutters and takes 4 mins to start up; and explorer crashes as soon as you open it)

Has anyone looked at Windows 8. To me windows not a serious OS anymore. You can’t really customize it to what you really need, like you can with Linux. Window 8 was built for the tablet computers. I can not take Windows 8 as a serious desktop environment.
I can see another reason why the space station chose Linux, You can configure it more to your real needs. .

‘Tis Moi

The ISS will run Linux according to the United Space Alliance. I’m thinking that this is a group who know a thing or two about computers & operating systems & that this wasn’t a simple knee-jerk decision based on the retirement of XP:

“…Keith Chuvala of the United Space Alliance says they wanted an operating system that “would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust or adapt, we could.””

Sounds reasonable to me. What sounds unreasonable, however, is the immediate downward spiral of any sort of worthwhile discussion here to an OS/fanboy rant-a-thon.

Do you actually believe that the people who run the ISS are just a bunch of uneducated, simple morons? Get real. If they say that Linux is more stable & less prone to infection than MS, in their experience, then I’ll wager that they have had to produce the evidence to back this decision.

From a personal perspective, I’ve been running Linux as my main OS for years now- no anti-virus installed, no infections. Never defragged or tweaked anything- it’s just run flawlessly & shows no symptoms of slow-down (as I found MS OS’s would do after about 12-18 months). Boots to desktop fast, shuts down even faster. I run VM’s, do photo work, mix music, play in online world’s, remote assist other people around the globe, & will soon be building my first server running Ubuntu & Amahi. I add this only as a background of a current Linux user. I happen to like Mint- but, as always, it’s a personal choice & Linux has many of those available. Cheers!

Ronald Loquinario

I use windows and Linux. No doubt both are powerful, both have pros and cons. Stop arguing. But, for me, its 50.1% Linux and 49.9% Windows.

Douglas Roatch

Strange Linux (open source) or available for anyone to modify or windows (closed sourced) how exactly is linux more secure and or less prone to viruss’ other than not being popular. Any OS can be hacked and infected with a virus.

John Martinson

It is only a matter of time before the entire earth follows suit. For those who have to run Windows programs I suggest they use Robolinux which coccoons WIndows 7 or XP insdie it, sharing all data with Windows safely inside the Robolinux partition. Since the Windows OS runs inside a special virtual machine that can be backed up and restored in just one click in a few minutes instantly, that makes Windows 100% immune to all viruses and malware.

red

You’re all retarded, linux is capable of compiling and running software; it’s vulnerable.
Any old bottomfeeding yodel can forkbomb a linux system, and if one who knows a low-level language and is informed on memory hierarchy, then, well, the possibilities are limitless.
Problem is, those people are too smart to get caught trying to run client side-software on your machines just to end up a couple hundred dollars richer in your lowly paypal pittance.

Those people end up at google, where they can just mine your data all day; with no need for “virus-like” code.
You fucking plebians don’t have a clue.

William Vincenti

Windows is a great way to keep people brain-dead and lazy, closed-source = closed mind, stupifying; open-source = freedom in action

CrimsonCobra

Typical rubbish from an anti-Windows idiot. At least with closed-source software, you don’t have to worry about your rival competitors stealing your code.

Utter rubbish. Both Microsoft and Apple (and Google) have profited from copying “original” ideas. I’d rather pick software that is both reasonably priced and effective at the intended role. I’d pick Thunderbird over Outlook and Firefox over IE any day.

William Vincenti

can’t steal what’s freely given, we know who the real idiot is…

CrimsonCobra

The real idiots are the ones who steal the owners’ code without their permission. Open source don’t guarantee protection against thieves. That’s why they choose the closed-source route.

Compared to open source model, it stands a far better chance against unauthorized copying. If you are still not convinced then name one high-profile case where closed-source has failed against copying.

William Vincenti

Like Steve Jobs did and Apple still does, people who believe in “intellectual property” do so because they are insecure in their thinking so want laws to diaper them. Crimson, you obviously do not understand open-source, you seem to be completely oblivious to the concept. In reality most of the major players in closed source industry also support open source. With Windows, you really don’t own your computer (hardware the majority of common home end users don’t have a clue what to do with), you rent it from Bill Gates and Windows software mfgs, you don’t even have real Admin access rights to the software you paid (rent) for. There are nonetheless, things I like about Windows over Linux so I continue to rent it however, it runs inside of free open source VirtualBox so i can fix it at no cost when it acts up. I avoid Apple by philosophy, I chose not to support an entity that attempts to remove my freedom to choose in the computing world. Perhaps you write code for a living and are job scared? Just because something is original doesn’t mean its the best choice either. The Model T (or whatever automobile Ford designed it after) was original, should we have stuck with the Model T for the past 100+ years?

UpInFlames

In reality most of the major players in closed source industry also support open source.

If that’s true then why don’t major players release their own products as open source? It seems hypocritical for them to support open source ideals yet they can’t do the same with their own products.

I’ve been running Linux server. It’s down again for the five billionth time… I can’t believe scientists still think Linux runs better than Windows. Windows is obviously more reliable and I’m going to switch my server back to Windows.

Have you considered that might just be because you don’t know how to use Linux?

Herminator

Most people here miss the point. Someone took a USB drive into a space station and actually used it and did not check it for a virus. Tut-Tut! No-one checked the USB drive before or after putting the data on it to see if it was virus-free? Where was the data copied from? Home? The Office? A mobile network? If it was the Office, there are bigger issues here. This has nothing to do with Windows vs Linux. It has to do with shoddy security practices for data in transit and the United Space Alliance messed up so they are looking for something/someone to blame. It’s like going for a drink in a bar and leaving your keys on the bar counter, going to the bathroom and then that person comes out to find their car stolen. It has nothing to do how good or bad the car’s security was – it was the stupidity of the driver not to protect his keys. This story focuses on the wrong angle and should be re-written.

if we’d just stuck with the original aircraft, you know, the one the Wright Bro’s stole from the boys in Ohio? do you think there’d be a NASA to prompt all this computer discussion? the original is better than reverse engineered code right??? just saying. NASA doesn’t make these decisions on a whim – and as far as security, at White Sands, they literally have real people and a huge plethora of machines dedicated round the clock to secure the space program. If you have never been to the WSTF or on that floor, your opinions are not based on facts, possibly not experience either.

R. Kingsboro

At least one branch of the government knows what it’s doing.

Plast0000

Using Windows xp then taking about the lack of security and reliability? Oh the irony

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

Email

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletter at any time.